1000 TIT BITS ON DISCIPLINE -221
Right to Information Act, requisitioning documents thereunder for defence
848. Where an employee on receipt of charge sheet instead of replying to it asked for several documents/information including draft charge sheet, and copy of investigation report, the department gave copies of certain instructions but denied the rest, the CIC upheld the action of the Department observing – "Using the RTI Act to start a side-dialogue with the public authority by an officer facing a disciplinary enquiry would be injurious to the ongoing enquiry and will end up complicating its process." [B. R. Beedu v. Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs & Central Excise, F.No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000376 dated 22.7.2009]
EARLIER STATEMENTS MADE BY THE WITNESSES DURING INVESTIGATION
849. These are the statements recorded during investigation by the C.B.I./local police or in the fact-finding inquiry by a departmental officer. The statements recorded by C.B.I./local police do not bear signatures of the person concerned vide. S. 162(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The statements can be used in regular inquiry in two ways i.e., (i) for contradiction; & (ii) for corroboration (Ss. 145, 155 & 157, Evidence Act).
Supply of copies to defence essential
850. Since the charged employee has a right to use the earlier statements of witnesses, referred to above, for contradicting the testimony of any witness produced against them, the Supreme Court has held that the statements made by the prosecution witnesses during the investigation or preliminary inquiry should be supplied to the charged employee before the regular hearing in which those witnesses are examined begins. Such statements should be supplied in full and not only synopsis [State of M.P. v. Chintaman, Air 1961 SC 1623; State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, AIR 1974 SC 2335]. The purpose of supply of these copies is to enable the charged employee to cross-examine the official witnesses effectively. (ibid.) It is, however, essential that the employee makes a formal request for the same [P. R. Menjoge v. State, AIR 1967 M.P. 215]. There is no obligation to supply copies of statements of witnesses who are not produced during the course of inquiry in support of the charges. [ibid.] In State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal, AIR 1998 SC 3038, the Court held that non-supply of copies of these statements, though asked for by the employee resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and he was denied opportunity of defence.
If the case is re-investigated, the first investigation does not become non est. The statements recorded during earlier investigation can also be used during regular inquiry [Bhanuprasad H. Dave v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 1323).
Post a Comment